Other conditions decisions — 2018

The Veteran's claim for a higher rating for left eye dermatochalasis since May 30, 2017 was denied as the evidence did not show that his scar met the criteria for a compensable or higher rating under VA disability evaluation criteria. The appeal prior to May 30, 2017 was also denied.

The Veteran's death from gastric cancer is being remanded for a VA examiner to provide an opinion on whether it was caused by his presumed in-service Agent Orange exposure.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for herpes simplex type II, finding no link between his current condition and active service.

The appeal was dismissed due to the Veteran's death, and no jurisdiction remains for further consideration.

The Board found that the Veteran's service from June 17, 2002 to May 22, 2008 is not a bar to VA benefits. However, his service from May 23, 2008 to August 31, 2010 is considered a bar to VA benefits.

The Board denied a compensable rating for residuals of a right little finger fracture, finding that the Veteran's disability did not warrant a higher schedular rating than assigned throughout the appeal period.

The Board has determined that there is no current disability due to malaria or a related disease at any time, and therefore the Veteran's claim for service connection for malaria is denied.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for recognition as the surviving spouse of the Veteran, finding that they were divorced at the time of the Veteran's death and did not continuously cohabitate.

The Veteran's death was not caused by his military service, including secondary to herbicide exposure. The Board found that the preponderance of evidence demonstrated that the cause of death (sepsis due to or as a consequence of pneumonia) was unrelated to his service-connected conditions.

The appellant withdrew her appeal, and the Board dismissed it due to lack of allegations for appellate consideration.

The Veteran's claim for a higher disability rating for his service-connected intervertebral disc syndrome with degenerative changes is remanded due to the need for additional evidence and clarification of current severity.

The Veteran's death did not result in any accrued benefits due and unpaid, as the retroactive award was for service connection of stroke residuals. The Appellant is an adult child who cannot claim accrued benefits under 38 C.F.R. § 3.816(f).

The Veteran is granted a retroactive clothing allowance for the years 1990 through 2010 due to his service-connected dermatophytosis, which requires medication that damages his clothing.

The Veteran's orchialgia with history of hematospermia is not rated as compensable due to lack of evidence of urinary tract infections requiring long-term drug therapy, 1-2 hospitalizations per year, or intermittent intensive management.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to the need for additional VA examinations and evaluations, particularly regarding dental conditions. The Veteran's trigeminal neuralgia is being reviewed again, but any related dental issues will also be evaluated.

The Veteran's glomerulonephritis was rated at a 30 percent rating prior to September 18, 2012. The Board found that the symptoms more closely approximated albumin constant or recurring with red blood cells, warranting this rating.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a skin condition, finding no evidence linking his current condition to his active service or herbicide exposure.

The Veteran's bilateral weak feet with pes vago planus are granted a 50 percent rating, but not higher. The claim for TDIU is also remanded.

The Board previously denied a rating in excess of 10 percent for the Veteran's service-connected right-hand laceration, but the Court found that the decision was not supported by adequate reasons or bases. The case is being remanded to provide a new medical examination and opinion.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's bilateral hip and sacroiliac joint arthritis may have pre-existed service, but there is no clear and unmistakable evidence to support this. The claims are being remanded for further examination and opinion.